These are the opinions of an unknown man. I write about whatever comes to mind.

"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Friday, August 10, 2007

Sexual Disunion

Recently, six democratic Presidential candidates were asked about homosexual marriage. None of them endorsed such a proposal. They were able to agree that "civil unions" would be okay. But seriously folks, what's a marriage but a civil union, since you have to get permission, not from the church, but from the civil government, eh?

I recently wrote a blog about sex: Why Must Sex Be Dirty?, August 1, 2007. This inability of politicians, both Democrat and Republican to squarely face the fact that homosexuals are, have been, and always will be with us, as a natural phenomenon, can be traced back to the fact that our society's moral view of sex was formed by some ancient men who came from a culture and religion that put heavy emphasis on reproduction; that homosexual behavior was non reproductive and therefore wrong. It also doesn't help that those same early "church" leaders thought that to enjoy physical pleasure for itself was, in and of itself, sinful. That would include,of course, sex, even between a man and a woman. What sorry, sick people those men were. (Well, what the hell, they couldn't help it. They didn't even know that germs existed, let alone genes, chromosomes, and DNA.) Still, today we have to live with the centuries and centuries of personal moral beliefs based on a lack of science, logic, and acceptance of differences that normally occur in large population groups.

Don't the politicians today realized that homosexuality has been documented in animal species? How could it not be in the human species, given all the possible combinations and permutations of how brains can develop?

In any case, the issue was marriage of homosexuals. A rather small issue when you consider the more serious, life-and-death things that are going on in the world today. As I see it, marriage was instituted for two basic purposes: 1) to tell the tribe, and neighbors, that this particular woman now belonged to this particular man . . . woman as legal property; and 2) to tell the tribe and neighbors that the married couple were to be responsible for any children born from their--ugh!--disgusting sexual congresses. (I hope that all you so-called Christians out there realize that no where in the Bible does it limit the number of wives a man could have. It only limited him to having sex with a woman who was his wife . . . which, more or less, meant any concubines and slaves he might own too. How many legal sexual partners could a man have. It all depended on how rich he was and how many he wanted and could afford.)

In today's world, women are no longer property, at least not in the more socially advanced nations. But children should still be the primary responsibility and concern of those who produce them, whether they are married or not. So what's the big deal about homosexuals getting married? If it's not about owning the "wife" or being responsible for children produced in wedlock, to be archaic in my language, then it must be about have survivors' benefits from Social Security and insurance policies. It can't be about a mere scrap of paper that says that John Doe and Joe Doakes are now "man and man" (??), or that Jane Doe and Janet Doakes are now "woman and woman" (??).

Because if that's what it's all about, why hell I can make up a really good "Marriage Certificate" on my computer, and I'll even preside over a really good marriage ceremony for them too. Cheap! It won't be "legal" as in recorded in the County Recorder's Office, but, as it says in the Bible, a man and a woman who claim to be married, especially in front of their family and friends, are married. Notwithstanding the anti-homosexual bigotry of the Bible, I don't see why that wouldn't be good enough for John and Joe, or Jane and Janet, eh? I mean if it were just a matter of love, and not a matter of money.

So back to the politicians. If any one of them had a set of balls or, as in the case of Hilary Clinton, ovaries, they would clearly state that they were for homosexual marriages--because it really doesn't matter and it really won't disrupt heterosexual marriage, coupling, and child bearing--and then cite the studies that strongly suggest that homosexuality is a natural condition, not a choice one makes suddenly one day. But, of course, they can't do that. They are politicians. Which means that they will say what they think the majority want them to say so that they can get elected, whether they believe it or not. And that's why I have always said: Beware of anyone who aspired to political office. They should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

The Myth of Inalienable Rights as Applied to the War on Drugs: The Tyranny of Legislating Morality

Violence, corruption, the violation of the rights of millions of citizens, the highest per capita incarceration rate, as well as the greatest number of actual people in prison of any nation in the world, all brought to you by the $100 billion per year failure and longest-running war in America...the so-called "war on drugs." If you thought the government was supposed protect your rights, not violate them, you need to read this essay: The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/.